Featured Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?

People authored the texts. We know this. so=one of the texts are autographed. It’s not dictation, so the words are through the lens of the writers’ understanding. That’s it.

Not in the same way you do.

No, I said your arguments had a heretical foundation.

Of course it is.

I never said that. Not once.

Yes, how stupid. You’re so flustered that you’re just making up stuff to throw around. And it’s stupid. Your arguments are making less and less sense.

 

Indeed, I would probably also have been that lucky.

Well, concerning belief for the Christian, it is not really something one can choose. When I say 'belief' I really mean 'belief'. I believe it. I can not change it. You may torture me to the point where I say I don't believe it, but then I am just a liar.

Yes the scientific belief base upon reason and evidence is far apart from the Christian belief. We believe because God gives it to us to believe. We cannot change it.

This is a brief description I give. I have a feeling I won't be around here much longer, so I hope it helps. If you respond and I am still here, I will respond back. If I don't respond, it is not because I didn't want to.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

The Bible does not even claim to be the "written word of God". That is the interpretation of the Bible of some Christians. It is a bit of a stretch, and more than a bit blasphemous.

 

You broke forum rules. I did not. The rest of your rant isn’t worth responding to. Nothing but baseless ad hominem and creative fact-telling. But then, the usual last cry is one of desperation like that. I think we’re done here. No one’s buying what you’re trying to sell.

 

No, God is the Author. Man is just the writer. Actually part was direct dictation. (Ex. 34:27-28) "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words; for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee....And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Thus it is inspired by God.

The other mode of inspiration was the Spirit of God influencing the spirit of man. (1 Chron. 28:12) "And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit...." (1 Chron. 28:19) "All this, said David, the LORD made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern." Thus it is inspired by God. It is through the lens of the Spirit of God giving the human writers spirit what to write.

As I said, you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

Accusing one of heresy is the same as being called a heretic.

The Canon of the Christian faith is the 66 books of the Old and New Testament. The canon you defend is not the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

No, you don't want to respond because you can't support what you have been saying. And you still have post #(259) to respond to also. Several important questions there for you.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

You can bray about these same baseless accusations all you like; none of it changes the reality.

 

You want to talk about someone who can’t support his fantasy with facts? Look in the mirror.

 

The Bible is clear that the Author is God. I showed you as you said the Bible is the work of human writers only. That is not braying. That is showing you that you don't know what you are talkling about. Then when you are shown, all you can say is I am braying.

Indeed you cannot change the reality that the Bible declares itself to be the Word of God and is the Word of God, and that is what mainstream Christianity believes.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

I understand your unwillingness to respond. You have nothing more to offer. When you're ready to respond to the posts I have given, get back with me.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

I have to admit: you’re tenacious even when you’re wrong.

 

It’s not that I have nothing more to offer, but the Bible warns against the futility of casting your pearls before swine. My best scholastic effort would be wasted on one who will not see. Therefore, why waste the effort?

 

That is merely creative interpretation on your part. At best the verses you refer talk about undefined "scripture".

 

They can't all be right........but they can all be wrong

 

As a spiritual non believer of God stories, I applied human reasoning to my own studies.

Argument is false, for arguing was against science...and science is not correct, for it is a human choice, not a human existence.

So I thought as a self for myself without coercion, being the statements of science.

For the only relative we ever owned in human life is what males said was O God the stone, which is not any book.

O stone existed as stone, the philosophy and philosophy was not owner of books it was natural males meeting and discussing their conscious human spiritual ideals.

Therefore stone never owned a beginning for the mind says, once stone was not stone originally. As a true thought.

Therefore stone never owned an end....for space, being cold deep and empty by unknown depth and measure allows stone to exist.

So I told self, do not believe what enforced preaching says.....as human experience taught me otherwise.

That not one of the comments said were real for human life, when so much pain and suffering existed....we were never saved by God....but God O the body saved itself...by becoming colder by dropping in space....why I understood that Mother of God O the stone was space...and the holy Mother kept God the body safe...but we are not kept safe.

For we are just relatives of the history of God O the stone...and all information is relative to our relative which is God O the stone history....from a ^ volcanic mountain release, of hot dense gases into cold mother womb....and conversion by cold and pressure.

So I did not even bother reading any Bible books until I got scientifically bodily and mind notified of science attacking my natural life.

Why I knew that my natural Healer spiritual brother had endured the exact same human condition in his own past.

To own stories imposes that a story had to be told.

So when a male self deisms his own self by claiming I know how I was created, he then formed an unnatural self purpose in science, which is to remove self by removing what he said was God....the presence of natural stone.

And it owned no other rational explanation.

Stone is my relative, just because I am inheriting life by living upon the body of stone......but my 2 human parents are my life continuance by the act of sexual intercourse.

As a human born as a baby and forced to endure all adult pre existing forced teachings, I learnt to see the adult human self who they had become...….a personal deceitful human life chooser...who forces a newly born baby to inherit all of their wrong choices.

I do not believe in any human expression that they are superior in the expression of intelligence. For the intelligence that science utilizes is how to destroy life....their intelligence was never imposed to factually claim how life was created, for all of their owned themes is how to gain a point or moment in cosmological time when life owned no historic ownership to its natural bio form...water existing as its natural form.

And I think today isn't science trying to change the Nature of the spiritual state of water?

And if science was enabled to achieve that result....all life on Earth would not own any existence, for science would have actually gained the moment when a male says, and I will give the machine our life and existence in that moment....for I never wanted to exist as a Satanic science theme.....male human deistic Destroyer self.

What those books detailed as a medical science healer mind, reviewing the historic evilness of the chosen Destruction of natural life.

 

From what I have seen, he is always tenacious.

 

Tenacity is a good thing.



Until you become four years old.

 

THE MULTITUDE OF CANONS
This thread has demonstrated that the modern, western bible canon is simply one of several canons that have been adopted by various christianities.

AUTHORSHIP NOT A CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN A CANON
We find the inclusion and exclusion of texts within the various canons is not based on authorship since we do not know nor can we prove who wrote any of the books in any Old or New Testament text.

THE ARBITRARINESS OF THE VARIOUS CANONS
This thread has demonstrated that the specific canon one adopts is somewhat arbitrary since canons have always differed in various times and various geographic locations. Different people in different places and times have had different canons.

ERRORS WITHIN TEXTS OF THE VARIOUS CANONS
The thread demonstrated that the ancient religious texts have many types of errors within them and thus religious texts in the various canons are not inerrant.

THE INSPIRATION WITHIN THE TEXT OF THE VARIOUS CANONS

I agree that one criteria for a text to deserve the title of “scripture” is that the text is a product of inspiration. However, the concept of detecting and measuring inspiration is difficult to define.

For example, there is no objective “inspirometer” that allows us to claim inspiration as the criteria for inclusion or exclusion into a canon. What seems to be an “inspirational” text or interpretation to one person is heresy to the next person.

Often, the various inclusions vs exclusions in the various canons were often based on whether a text supported a specific theology. That is, a text “seems” to be inspired because it agrees with an individuals’ or a groups religious bias rather than based on an objective measurement of “inspiration”.

Luther rejects James, Erasmus accepts Esdras, Columbus believed in, quoted from, and used non-canonical Esdras’ description of the oceans in his determination of how much water he will navigate before reaching land. Galileos Daughter uses Hermas’ “wintertime” of the righteous in her letters to her Father. In this same way that these individuals all have their different Canons based on what inspired them, how does one then measure “inspiration” as a general rule for all individuals?

If 2 Tim 3:16 “Every writing, inspired of God is useful for teaching, rebuking, etc...” is a criterian for inclusion in an individual's canon, then a profoundly important principle is to have some measure of what writing is inspired, (at least whether we should include it in our various personal canons).

Clear
τωακσενεω